Reciprocal Advancement: Building Linkages Between Domestic

R E C I P RO C A L A D VA N C E M E N T—
Building Linkages Between Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault
A UNIFYING FIELDS PROJECT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The mission of the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault (CALCASA) is to provide
leadership, vision and resources to rape crisis centers, individuals, and other entities committed
to ending sexual violence.
CALCASA would like to thank the Blue Shield of California Foundation for making this project
possible and for providing vision and leadership in building linkages between the fields.
We appreciate the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence for their support throughout
the process and for working with CALCASA to identify new opportunities to build linkages
between the domestic and sexual violence movements.
We thank all of our national partners who participated in key informant interviews and
helped to provide perspectives from dual coalitions around the nation. We also thank those
who provided input during the 2013 National Sexual Assault Conference workshops, whose
contributions helped to shape the project.
Funding
Staff
The funding for Unifying Fields Project: Building Linkages
Between Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault was provided
by Blue Shield of California Foundation.
CALCASA staff who contributed to the outcome of this
project through Think Tank and/or workshop, research
and reviewing of this report:
Written by
SANDRA HENRIQUEZ
Executive Director
LEAH ALDRIDGE
Facilitator and Consultant
ELLEN YIN-WYCOFF
Former Associate Director
Prepared with Support from
DAVID S. LEE
Director of Prevention Services
SANDRA HENRIQUEZ
Executive Director
DENICE LABERTEW
Director of Advocacy Services
SHAINA BROWN
Public Affairs & Communications Associate
ROSEMARY GONZALES
Administrative Manager
DEENA FULTON
Training & Technical Assistance Coordinator
SHAINA BROWN
Public Affairs & Communications Associate
Workshop Participants
Alison Tudor, Alsah Bundi, Alvaro Viramontes, Barbara Kappos,
Beth Hassett, Dina Polkinghorne, Frank Blakeney, Gina Pilat,
Jeanine Werner, Jennifer Adams, Jenny Davidson, Jenny
Davidson, Jill Morgan, Joelle Gomez, Joey Cox, Judy Durham,
Julia Ramirez, Kathy Moore, Kim Panelo, Lee Perales, Leeann
Juan, Linda Hodges, Lynnette Irlmeier, Marina Cavanagh,
Marsha Krouse-Taylor, Matt Huckabay, May Rico, Michelle
Coleman, Misti Clark-Holt, Nancy Ramsey, Patti Giggans,
Paul Bancroft, Raquel Garcia, Sandy Monroy, Sheri Young,
Tracy Lamb, Sonia Rivera, Verna Griffin-Tabor
© 2015 by California Coalition Against Sexual Assault
•
ABBY SIMS
Training & Technical Assistance Coordinator
DEENA FULTON
Training & Technical Assistance Coordinator
Layout + Design
NIKI DIGRIGORIO
Half Rabbit Design Inc.
1215 K Street, Suite 1850, Sacramento, CA 95814
•
www.calcasa.org
Table of Contents
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Making the Case for Reciprocal Advancement . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Project Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault embarked on the Unifying Fields Project, we immediately identified
a lack of literature, research and practical applications linking the fields of domestic violence and sexual assault. The
outcomes of the project could no longer be prescribed; instead, a flexible approach, highlighted by stakeholder input,
recalibrated the initiative. The challenges ultimately positioned CALCASA to let the process unveil a theory of change
that can be used to elevate domestic violence and sexual assault together: reciprocal advancement.
Reciprocal advancement intentionally recognizes the differences between domestic violence and sexual assault, but
instills a need to support and advance the issues in unison, especially during financially challenging times. To sustain the
movement to end violence against women, it is necessary to raise the profile of the issues together through policy, fund
development, direct services, media and prevention. Establishing meaningful partnerships and linking the leaders of both
fields can bolster funding, enhance coordinated services, and overcome operational and ideological barriers that have
formed over the years.
Over the course of the project, it became evident that the starkest ideological barrier to overcome is the notion
that, in order to link the fields of domestic violence and sexual assault, we must merge (movements, services, and/
or organizations). CALCASA’s Unifying Fields Project was not intended to advocate for merger in all instances; rather,
we aim to acknowledge the diversity that enriches our collective work and provide organizations with a model for
institutionalizing and internalizing methods and content to strengthen and sustain coordinated efforts to end violence
against women, benefiting local communities and global society.
A commitment from leadership is a cornerstone to the success of reciprocal advancement. In order to grow and support
a unified approach, it is essential that intentional collaboration be championed throughout all organizational structures.
A leader is not limited to executive staff, positional leadership maintains that all staff members be empowered to
consider opportunities and methods to increase the power and impact of both issues. CALCASA’s theory of change,
reciprocal advancement, operates under the notion that increased resources and funding will follow a commitment
from leadership to identify and seize opportunities to link domestic violence and sexual assault.
CALCASA’s Unifying Fields Project, “Reciprocal Advancement: Building Linkages Between Domestic Violence and Sexual
Assault” provides a foundation to explore and develop resources and relationships to advance the efforts of both issues.
The enclosed guidelines and framework offer strategies to move a unified field forward given the realities of leadership
challenges, unstable funding, and ever-changing political winds. Reciprocal advancement is a mechanism to increase
organizational efficiency and sustainability, while illuminating the benefits of proactive messaging and action.
2
CALCASA: 2015
INTRODUCTION
In 2013, the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault
(CALCASA) entered into an unprecedented effort to link the
fields of sexual assault (SA) and domestic violence (DV) in
order to advance the causes of both movements. Under the
larger umbrella of violence against women, clear correlations
and common risk and protective factors exist between
SA and DV; however, in addition to treatment modalities,
the two fields have their distinctions and differences, the
most significant of which include public perceptions and
funding. Funding issues routinely expose non-profits
to levels of vulnerability; recent policy issues (including
cuts to the federal Rape Prevention Education funding)
philosophically and materially threaten DV/SA prevention
and intervention services at local and statewide levels.
With CALCASA constituents consisting of stand-alone rape
crisis centers (RCCs), dual (sexual and domestic violence)
program agencies (DPAs) and national DV/SA entities, the
Unifying Fields Project: Building Linkages Between Domestic
Violence and Sexual Violence (UFP) has revealed a theory of
change to withstand those threats while simultaneously
promoting sustainability among its constituents: reciprocal
advancement. Reciprocal advancement is defined as a
method of intentionally linking the fields of sexual assault
and domestic violence, internally and externally, to
leverage funding, bolster client services, and coordinate
advocacy efforts to increase the visibility and sustainability
of both fields. In belief and in practice, each movement
against violence buoys the other, elevating awareness of and
attention to both via reciprocal advancement.
The rationale and justification for sustainability via a unified
field became increasingly more apparent as CALCASA’s UFP
methodically moved through the process of reviewing scant
literature on the topic, to conducting key interviews with
local and national executive directors of dual organizations,
a 2-day think tank, and facilitated discussions with 2013
National Sexual Assault Conference participants. At no
point did anyone think that having the two fields function
in a “unified” fashion was a bad idea. Nevertheless, doing
so was easier said than done, as it would require the field to
overcome certain challenges that have consistently impeded
unification, and allow each field to function in a “linked-yetdistinct” manner when necessary. Given the benefits and
challenges of aligning the two fields, reciprocal advancement
became the most viable method for accommodating the
two complementary practices.
CALCASA’s UFP’s reciprocal advancement, as a “theory of
change” for both fields, recommends strategies that:
Integrate intervention and prevention strategies for SA
and DV;
Create new opportunities for investment and to identify
intersections and linkages between SA and DV intended to
advance both causes and generate new ones;
Support local, state, and national leadership in intentional
conversations and collaborations aimed at breaking down
barriers and strengthening communication between the
two disciplines.
Above all, the proposed strategy of reciprocal advancement
for the greater sustainability of both SA and DV work requires
a leadership shift in how dual and stand alone agencies
currently conduct business. Without strong leadership
championing reciprocal advancement, none of the other
strategies will thrive. Leadership will ensure that successful
advocacy of both issues occurs at every level of policy
development, fundraising, and activism. Service cohesion
among SA and DV agencies will increase capacity to deliver
holistic and comprehensive programming to their respective
communities. Opportunities to leverage one issue, in
support of the other, are at the forefront of planning and
implementation. CALCASA’s UFP advances the resources
and efforts committed by the Blue Shield Against Violence
Initiative by expanding the domestic violence base, of which
CALCASA is a part via its dual sexual and domestic violence
members. Finally, UFP strategies will be added to CALCASA’s
menu of training and technical assistance resources. As
supported by Blue Shield’s own literature, Intersections and
Power of Partnerships, I a more unified base in the movement
to end violence against women ultimately leads to healthier
and safer communities.
1 out of 10 women in the U.S.
has been raped by an intimate
partner in her lifetime.II
With historically similar origins emerging during the civil
rights, counterculture, and second wave feminist movements, the fields of sexual assault and domestic violence
operate from the assumption that there are clear benefits
associated with the two disciplines working more closely.
A UNIFYING FIELDS PROJECT
3
MAKING THE CASE FOR RECIPROCAL ADVANCEMENT
ORIGIN STORY: Documentary filmmaker Mary Dore’s film
She’s Beautiful When She’s Angry (2014)1 chronicles the rise of
second wave feminism in the United States. Largely focused
on the period of organizing between 1966-1971, the film
addresses the complexity and fractured characteristics of
feminism. With forays into how race, class, and lesbian rights
complicated efforts to coalesce, the film also addresses
threats to ‘womanness’ such as reproductive health,
equal pay/employment, sexual harassment, sexual assault
and domestic violence. This film, along with countless
other works, underscores the co-emerging presence and
continued relationship of SA, DV, and feminism. Laws
addressing “wife-beating” and “unlawful carnal knowledge”
extend back into antiquity and variously address the issues
from the perspective of female-as-chattel, or property, to
be owned and controlled by men (eg, fathers, would-behusbands, etc).
In mid-19th century America, notable distinctions in how
the two issues are characterized and politicized begin to
emerge – while what is now referred to as domestic violence
is situated within discourses of the ‘family,’2 reformation of
rape laws in the post-Civil War/Reconstruction era reflected
efforts to increase the rights of women, an inherently
political gesture.3 Despite different characteristics, policy
responses, and historical trajectories, domestic violence
and sexual assault along with human sex trafficking, honor
killings, acid attacks, female infanticide, and other crimes
overwhelmingly perpetrated against women by men4 are
rooted in the same soil of misogyny. While frequently and
continuously problematic in its politics of race/class/sexuality,
it is nevertheless important to note how second wave
feminism (a) generated a platform to uniformly confront and
challenge sexual and domestic violence as “violence against
women”; (b) was, in very large part, the impulse from which
contemporary sexual and domestic violence fields emerged;
and (c) fostered lasting influences on this work which has
included the need to unite and struggle through differences.
In addition to the acceptance of the links between SA and
DV as truism in the field, the World Health Organization, the
Centers for Disease Control, and various researchers have
documented empirical evidence that the issues share several
risk and protective factors. The risks factors that contribute
to a person’s likelihood to perpetrate SA or DV are complex,
and they come from all levels of society, from individuals and
personal relationships to communities and society as a whole
(see Table 1). Individual factors related to low socioeconomic
status, poor behavioral control and conflict resolution skills,
belief in and adherence to harmful gender norms, and a
history of witnessing or experiencing violence personally, in
the family and in the community, all increase a person’s risk
for perpetrating sexual and domestic violence. Poor family
relationships and association with delinquent peers also
increase risk, as do community and society factors like high
rates and tolerance of violence, community poverty, and norms
supporting harmful gender roles and the use of violence.III,IV,V
Clearly, there is an abundance of factors that contribute to both
domestic and sexual violence and the two fields should work
together to change these risk factors when they can.
Table 1. Shared Risk Factors for Perpetrating Sexual and Domestic ViolenceIII,IV,V
INDIVIDUAL LEVEL
RELATIONSHIP LEVEL
COMMUNITY LEVEL
SOCIETY LEVEL
low education, child sexual abuse victimization, antisocial personality, harmful use of
alcohol, acceptance of violence, having multiple partners/infidelity, lack of non-violent
social problem-solving skills, poor behavioral control/impulsiveness, history of violent
victimization, poverty, adherence to traditional/harmful gender norms, having
witnessed family violence
poor parent-child relationships, family conflict, associating with delinquent peers,
gang involvement
weak community sanctions, community/neighborhood poverty
social norms supportive of violence/aggression, traditional/harmful gender norms,
weak policies to respond to violence, high unemployment rates
Footnotes:
http://www.shesbeautifulwhenshesangry.com/
1
American Humane Association animal abuse efforts lead to interventions into child abuse, and eventually, wife abuse. Much family abuse was attributed to alcohol abuse
rather than rather than sexism.
2
Statutory (age of consent) and marital rape, sexual assault of unmarried women, and rape of black and Native women in various ways underscore the desire for greater
female personhood, specifically by controlling access to their own bodies, invariably leading to reductions in men’s power over women’s sex and sexuality.
3
Female participation in such actions is typically based in ‘traditions’ that reinforce male patriarchal order.
4
4
CALCASA: 2015
Over the course of conducting CALCASA’s UFP and given the
historical context of the movement to end violence against
women, the rationale and justification for sustainability via
a unified field became increasingly more substantiated.
The proposed strategy of reciprocal advancement for the
greater sustainability of both SA and DV work requires a
shift in how agencies conduct business. The degree in shift
will vary from organization to organization, but some recent
trends can be identified:
In the last few years, SA and DV have weathered
significant cuts in intervention and prevention funding
(Violence Against Women Act, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, etc.). Stand-alone rape crisis
centers and domestic violence shelter agencies are
perceived to be vulnerable to shifts in funding and
community norms. Alternately, the ways in which SA
and DV have historically functioned will need to change
in order to remain relevant.
Over the last two decades, policy, research, and shifts in
funding priorities have expanded or redirected the work
of SA and DV (outcomes based, evidence based, best
practices, underserved populations, prevention focus,
etc). While these shifts often reflect contemporaneous
political winds, they nevertheless seek to increase
impact, encourage greater efficiency, and optimize
limited resources.
The research for CALCASA’s UFP revealed generational
rifts between founding mothers and future leaders,
many of whom are millennials. This disconnect in some
ways echos the experiences of women of color who felt
unwelcome, marginalized and/or invisible at mainstream
organizations during second wave feminism who
subsequently established separate SA and DV effortsVI,VII
Millennial activists (ostensibly those who will carry forth
the work begun four decades ago) approach SA and
DV in ways that reflect a tech-centric, “post-feminist”,
globalized world. Frequently this perspective makes
no real discernible distinctions between SA and DV
ideologies and praxis.
Rather than playing catch up, proactive strategies such
as reciprocal advancement would ensure that the fields of
SA and DV set the trends. Becoming more proactive among
National Impact from Rape Prevention
Education Funding Formula Changes
The following states lost between $100,000 and
$1,000,000 due to federal funding formula changes:
1.California
2.Texas
3. New York
4.Florida
5.Illinois
6.Pennsylvania
7.Ohio
8.Michigan
9. North Carolina
10. New Jersey
communities, funders, researchers, policymakers, media, and
others ensures a degree of viability and relevance for those
who demand that women, children, and men have a right
to live life free from rape and battering. Stated otherwise,
why would it be acceptable for any single or dual agency
to advocate for anti-rape strategies but not anti-domestic
violence strategies and vice versa? CALCASA’s UFP revealed
that, among many communities, and consistent with the
millennials, SA and DV are largely assumed to be one and
the same. Clearly, there are distinctions, and communities
collapse the issues into one based on lived experiences,
which can be interpreted as a generalized acceptance of a
“violence against women” approach advanced by those
radical feminists decades ago.
It is essential that SA/DV advocates continually assess and
evaluate certain dynamics (public image, connections,
representation, etc.) between themselves and communities
at large, as the reciprocal advancement approach would
require organizations to work more openly and in less
isolated ways. CALCASA’s UFP suggests that the SA and DV
fields initiate conversations and drive innovation whenever
possible. As partners in the struggle to end violence against
women, SA and DV can ensure that by working reciprocally,
we are always attentive to a holistic approach to individual
and collective well-being.
Stated otherwise, why would it be acceptable for any single or dual agency to advocate
for anti-rape strategies but not anti-domestic violence strategies and vice versa?
A UNIFYING FIELDS PROJECT
5
AN OBVIOUS QUESTION: If SA and DV are so closely and obviously linked, why does there appear to be separation and division?
Given the real or perceived separation between the fields of SA and DV, it is essential to return to how the two movements have
been historically situated and how that has influenced socio-cultural attitudes, funding, and policymaking over time. Because of
the history and socio-political climate, two effects of these influences have emerged: the continued blaming of victims for their
own victimization (which is essentially a deflection from root causes and perpetrators), and structural and ideological limitations
to coalescence. Instead of attempting to “solve” these dilemmas, CALCASA sees tremendous value and opportunities ahead to
foster the principle and practice of reciprocal advancement – all that is needed is the political will and leadership. In other words,
no one and nothing has decreed that sexual assault and domestic violence cannot work together for the greater good of both,
so what’s stopping us?
The short answer is that there are many places where SA and DV can converge. And now, CALCASA’s UFP reveals a strategic
approach for organizations to intentionally sustain these efforts through internalization and institutionalization via five areas
of coordination: policy, fund development, direct services, media and prevention.
POLICY
In 2011 and 2012, CALCASA partnered with The California Partnership to End Domestic Violence (The Partnership) in joint legislative
action days. Participants included representatives from geographically diverse programs from around the state, in addition to staff
from both the DV and SA coalitions. One of the main goals of joint legislative action days was to unify efforts to educate legislators
and advance each group’s policy agenda. Nationally, the National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV) and the National
Alliance to End Sexual Violence (NAESV) have also coordinated efforts in joint legislative action days to ascend upon Congress to
advocate for both issues.
This rich history of collaboration, mutual support, and commitment demonstrates unification across the issues: standing together
increases the power and impact of both efforts. CALCASA’s UFP project would add a model of organizational sustainability via a
strategy of reciprocal advancement. Advancement of policy mechanisms regarding one issue necessarily creates space for inclusion
of the other by strengthening and expanding an organization’s capacity to effect change.
6
CALCASA: 2015
FUND DEVELOPMENT
Throughout the process of the UFP, advocates highlighted
the funding disparity between domestic violence and
sexual assault that can separate and complicate the notion
of a unified field. Whether this funding disparity is real or
perceived, it has been identified as the proverbial elephant
in the room and a potential barrier to overcome, as strategies
are developed to link the issues. CALCASA’s approach in
identifying areas where domestic violence and sexual assault
can be coordinated includes partnering and leveraging
funding opportunities to elevate the topics simultaneously.
In 2014, The Partnership sponsored and Governor Brown
signed AB 2321, a piece of legislation that authorizes the
California Department of Motor Vehicles to develop a specialty
license plate to raise awareness for domestic violence and
sexual assault. The funds generated will be allocated to the
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Prevention Fund,
benefitting CALCASA and The Partnership. Each coalition
can utilize these funds to provide financial and technical
assistance to domestic violence and sexual assault centers for
the implementation of family violence prevention programs.
It is necessary to think creatively and strategically in order
to sustain the operations and impact of both types of
agencies that serve local communities and prioritize the
needs of survivors. The funding mechanism activated by
the passage of AB 2321 is just one example of fundraising
that can be instituted to raise the profile of both issues and
establish mutually beneficial partnerships. Organizations
can consider joint grant applications, legislative action, and
programmatic enhancements to create an environment that
is collaborative, instead of competitive.
Over the lifetime of the average American woman, she may experience
sexual abuse as a child, a date rape while attending college, and
find herself in an abusive battering relationship as an adult.
VIII
DIRECT SERVICES
One of the overall assumptions of CALCASA’s UFP project is that working the issues of SA and DV together makes for better service
provision. In doing so, CALCASA also promotes greater sustainability to not only its member agencies, but to the larger movement
to end violence against women. Those elements that wedge the two fields – public attitudes and funding – are and will continue
to be perennial struggles for both fields separately and/or together, so it makes sense to dispatch illusory effects of classic divideand-conquer tactics in favor of strategies that support both efforts, recognizing that in doing so, we extend our reach and impact.
Obviously, precedence exists where SA and DV have been conjoined in both formal and informal ways. One way is in the daily
practice of direct services. For example, over the lifetime of the average American woman, she may experience sexual abuse as a
child, a date rape while attending college, and find herself in an abusive battering relationship as an adult.VIII As a practice, typical
SA/DV dual organizations address the commonalities between the SA and DV survivors (physical trauma, powerlessness, Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder [PTSD], etc). Frequently, service providers will also need to address any sexual problems that may have
resulted from earlier sexual violence, while at the same time tackling the issue of self-blame, as many battered women feel complicit
in their abuse. Agencies with organizational and administrative commitment to both SA and DV ensure that volunteers, staff,
and collaborative partners are knowledgeable and skilled in recognizing the similarities and differences, and when to transition
between what is common between them and what requires issue specificity. Based on information gathered during CALCASA’s
UFP, many working in SA and DV disclosed challenges of being a dual SA/DV agency but unable to adequately serve the sexual
assault needs of their communities largely due to lack of commitment to the internalization of both issues.
A UNIFYING FIELDS PROJECT
7
MEDIA
Community organizing and public awareness activities such as grassroots education and media campaigns, including NO MORE,
can be effective in mobilizing masses in support of laws, policies, and other remedies that increase awareness and reduce
tolerance for DV and SA collectively. In light of multiple instances of domestic violence and child abuse, advocates from both DV
and SA worked as a unified voice to educate and influence the National Football League (NFL) to address both issues, resulting in
a donation for both DV and SA. This action by the NFL provides an excellent example of the utilization of reciprocal advancement:
leveraging one issue to elevate the other. NO MORE commercials, featuring prominent professional football players, have aired
during football games to increase public awareness and demonstrate the understanding and commitment of broadening the
dialogue to include domestic violence and sexual assault. Having such a publicly visible sponsor link the two issues under the
umbrella of “violence against women” has the potential to curate a national conversation about DV and SA as a unified issue and
offers the promise of creating true cultural shifts.
PREVENTION
The prevention efforts of domestic violence and sexual assault, although predominantly funded and implemented separately, often
share goals and content. Both DV and SA prevention programs commonly include providing educational workshops to students in
middle and high schools to increase awareness about DV and SA, and to reduce risk factors and build protective factors related to
perpetration. Where risk and protective factors overlap between the two issues, so do prevention lessons. For example, a common
strategy in DV and SA prevention is to promote healthy relationships and encourage respect for partners through increased gender
equity, conflict resolution skills, and setting and respecting boundaries. Programs with these goals often attempt to complicate
and challenge traditional gender ideals, especially those that perpetuate violence and men’s dominance and power over women,
which are risk factors for both DV and SA. Intentional coordination of these efforts and lessons cannot only increase consistency in
messaging, but can also result in more efficient use of resources.
Moreover, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), which funds prevention in both fields, has a major influence on the direction
of prevention work. The CDC’s Rape Prevention and Education (RPE) and Domestic Violence Prevention Enhancements and
Leadership Through Alliances, Focusing on Outcomes for Communities United with States (DELTA FOCUS) programs largely shape
the prevention landscape for DV and SA across the country. Both RPE and DELTA FOCUS are requiring prevention efforts to begin
to shift their focus from predominantly addressing individual and relationship-level risk and protective factors, like knowledge,
attitudes, and relationship skills, to community- and society-level work. These programs strongly encourage agencies to prioritize
changing community norms and organizational and public policy. Many practitioners in both fields are just beginning to do this
kind of broader systems change and are building their understanding of how to be effective. Both fields could benefit greatly from
sharing ideas and lessons learned about community and societal change.
8
CALCASA: 2015
Top-down approaches such as policy change work to ensure
long-term change and institutionalization of practices
and norms insist upon sustained linkages between SA and
DV. However, ground level service providers must exhibit
leadership within their organizations, collaborations,
coordinating councils, etc., to ensure comprehensive
approaches to SA and DV are sustained and communities
have continued resources for both issues, regardless of
how victimization may reveal itself. In the aforementioned
instances, the two issues have unified through specific,
task- and time-limited endeavors. These efforts have been
collaborative, intersectional, and successful in accomplishing
goals. This recent shift to collaboration, mutual support,
and commitment demonstrates unification across the
issues: standing together increases the power and impact
of both efforts. CALCASA’s UFP suggests that reciprocal
advancement would create organizational sustainability
and foster systematic change to ensure that it is integrated
strategically and consistently.
LINKED-YET-DISTINCT: CALCASA’s desire to initiate a
statewide and national conversation on unifying the fields
required an examination of barriers and challenges in
moving forward. What emerged early on was a need to
clarify the concept of a “unified field”. Interviewees and
Think Tank leadership from the sexual assault and domestic
violence fields made clear early on that the term “unified” was
problematic. While no one expressly stated what was faulty
about the term, many alternatives were recommended:
partnership, collaboration, integrated, inter-related, linking,
unified front, unity, united, and allied among them. Reaction
and discussion to the term prompted a Think Tank participant
to ask colleagues in the room, “Is there a fear about linking
the fields?” Based on data revealed during CALCASA’s UFP,
the short answer to this query is yes. Many took “unified”
to mean “merger,” (a term introduced by participants, not
CALCASA) which generated a productive conversation.
The need to define or clarify what was meant by “unified”
also allowed participants to talk openly and honestly about
tensions between the two fields, specifically the notion
that DV overshadows SA in both the outside world as well
as within stand alone and dual organizations. Alternately,
when discussing DV and SA with communities, funders,
policymakers, and others, there is a frequent conflating of the
two issues, glossing over their distinctions. Unfortunately, in
an effort to highlight distinctions, advocates create further
distance between the two issues when combatting the “it’s
all the same” mindset by underscoring their differences.
Finally, and perhaps most poignantly, discussants shared
that working in the SA and DV fields fostered a strong
sense of purpose and identity for advocates. Many laboring
in these respective fields are survivors or loved ones of
survivors and therefore are personally driven by the cause.
Thus, the perception of allowing another issue to hold an
equally significant position in the work can feel as if their
own primary or original focus (and thus their own sense of
purpose) has become marginalized. As a result, turf issues
materialize, with an “us-versus-them” or “my-issue-versusyour-issue” air emerges between the two fields.
What became clear was a need to formulate ways of
discussing SA and DV as two strategies yet one movement.
But how CALCASA’s UFP will be different from all others is
that SA and DV must be effectively yoked together in such
a way that each is somehow changed, transformed, as a
result of their contingent relationship. Thus, those funded
to work in a single issue/agency capacity are compelled to
address the other in their prevention, policy, fundraising,
direct service, and media efforts in an institutionalized
and internalized manner. For the two fields to overcome
barriers and work in any sort of unified capacity there
will need to be trust and mutual respect for each field’s
distinctiveness, expertise and value; no one can situate
one field as superior or inferior to the other. Eventually,
a “unified field” came to mean a linked-yet-distinct
characteristic: the strengthening of relationships between
DV and SA for the purpose of advancing either efforts, or,
reciprocal advancement.
Linked-yet-distinct
A UNIFYING FIELDS PROJECT
9
PROJECT SUMMARY
CALCASA’s Unifying Fields Project: Building Linkages Between
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (UFP) gathered the most
current information related to relationship-building between
the fields of sexual assault and domestic violence primarily
from the practitioner’s perspective. Data were collected from
local, statewide, and national entities involved in dual program
work. A synthesis and analysis of data (interviews, literature
review, workshops, survey) yielded recommendations and best
practices for dual sexual assault and domestic violence agencies,
as well as strategies for the continued conceptualization of
mechanisms to elevate both issues in unison.
CALCASA’s UFP methodology included:
1.
Review of existing literature as it related to unified
domestic and sexual violence efforts;
2. Key informant interviews (statewide and nationally);
3. Think-tank process comprised of Blue Shield Strong
Field Project dual-service organizations;
4. Workshops at the 2013 National Sexual Assault
Conference and a statewide workshop of dual
program agencies.
Data gathered from each component was shared with
participants each step of the way for their confirmation of
the evidence. This both affirmed our efforts and allowed
each project component to be carried forward. We achieved
our goals incorporating flexibility, adaptability, and openmindedness to allow the project to be directed, to some
degree, by the field. In so doing, CALCASA is able to ensure
that the UFP outcomes reflect the concerns and contributions
of its member constituents and their attendant communities.
As supported by Blue Shield’s own literature, Intersections and
Power of Partnerships I, a more unified base in the movement
to end violence against women ultimately leads to healthier
and safer communities.
Review of the Literature & Key Interviews:
Empirical and anecdotal literature that discusses a concomitant
relationship between SA and DV is scant. Articles are largely
field generated and directed at constituents and colleagues.
In general, the field-generated content is supportive of allyship between the two fields at the service provision and
prevention levels. It is no surprise that there were few instances
that investigated activism, policy work, and/or fundraising.
In general the data were supportive of a more unified field;
however, there were differing results related to whether sexual
assault services were negatively affected when offered as part
of a dual or multi-service organizations (vs. stand alone RCCs).
While not far apart in their conclusions, the fact that there is
perceived lack of parity is indicative of the larger issue of DV
overshadowing SA. Overwhelmingly, the literature reviewed
for CALCASA’s UFP underscores much of what the leadership
consulted for this project have articulated: the marginalization
of sexual assault within the larger movement to end violence
against women. As was echoed herein, the disparity continues
to be attributed to funding and public attitudes.
CALCASA’s UFP offers reciprocal advancement as a strategy
for addressing not only disparity between the two fields, but
as a sustainability strategy. As previously mentioned, shifts
in funding priorities and community norms, generational
attitudes, and a transitioning leadership base compel the
SA/DV fields to think and operate differently in order to
remain viable: these assertions are variously supported in the
literature and corroborated by CALCASA’s UFP participants.
Further, as evidence of these shifts, anecdotal data reveals
that some project participants are privy to a belief that
services rendered by stand alone SA/DV organizations can
be provided by multiservice organizations (ostensibly by
mental health professionals).
With funders and policymakers looking for ways to
maximize grant-making and efficacy, a continual trend of
‘professionalizing’ the field, and increased scrutiny over
the efficacy of shelter services, it is not inconceivable that
locating the totality of trauma recovery within one or
two staff, and an outsourcing of sheltering could become
standard operating procedure. The fields know that the
value of dedicated SA/DV programming exceeds that of
mere counseling and sheltering. Reciprocal advancement
would ensure, from a unified position, that dedicated SA/
DV services are not diminished, and that they remain
valued community members and contributors toward the
end of violence against women, regardless of whether
categorized as stand alone or dual.
A more unified movement to end violence against women
ultimately leads to healthier and safer communities.
10
CALCASA: 2015
Key Interviews:
Key interviews were intended to function as a pulse-check of
coalition constituents, and to express CALCASA’s desire to
exhibit leadership in relationship building between the two
fields. Furthermore, the interviews sought to identify benefits,
challenges, and barriers to a unified field, as well as catalysts
for unifying the issues. Interviewees were selected from dual
agency grantees of the Blue Shield of California Foundation
(BSCF) Strong Field Project and other BSCF initiatives.
Seven directors (executive, associate) from around the state
of California were engaged in individual conversations
lasting sixty minutes or longer. Interviewees were engaging,
happy to participate, and conversed easily. In addition to
discussing organizational profile, interviewees were asked to
comment on the following:
Benefits to a unified field;
Challenges to accomplishing unified fields;
Drawbacks to operating as unified fields;
Impetus to unify fields.
Overall, interviewees were eager to contribute to the
success of CALCASA’s UFP and diligent in voicing their
concerns. Interviewees confirmed that there is a perception
that DV overshadows SA in both the outside world as
well as organizations. Additionally, they disagreed as to
whether individuals and communities made significant or
relevant distinctions between DV and SA. Despite public
perceptions, interviewees felt that it was in the best interest
of communities and survivors to be able to address both
in intervention and prevention efforts. Finally, there was a
sense among interviewees that agencies are oriented more
toward social services than toward social justice.
Think Tank:
The Think Tank consisted of a convening of interviewees for a
two-day, focus group discussion as an opportunity to confirm
content summaries from the telephone interviews and make
additions as participants saw fit. Participants were selected
from organizations that were beneficiaries of Blue Shield’s
Strong Field or other BSCF funded projects and were diverse
geographically, culturally, and organizationally (dual or multiservice agencies). The think tank was also an opportunity
to bring The Partnership into a productive conversation
regarding working together for the mutual benefit of each
coalition and its respective membership.
This two-day discussion looked back at some of the historical
reasons for the divergent trajectories, how to expand the
benefits and rationale for a unified field, while overcoming
and addressing the barriers and drawbacks. This helped
guide the discussion to better define the concept of and
criteria for a unified field:
Maintain the distinctiveness of each; respect the histories,
differences, expertise, and accomplishments of each.
Build a collective history and identity together; seize
opportunities to deepen partnerships.
Play to the commonalities/similarities between the two
issues, particularly values, philosophies, and principles.
Intentionally ally against bias or challenges to either field.
Operate in the best interest of the public to bolster
trust and move a unified field forward, understanding
that constituencies may not be ready for this kind of
organizing.
Look to this creative space as an ideal for activism, social
justice, and innovation.
National Sexual Assault Conference 2013 (NSAC):
National Sexual Assault Conference 2013 (NSAC) workshops
intended to report project-to-date findings to national and
statewide colleagues and expand on the conversation of a
unified field with a focus on commonalities and intersections
between SA and DV. In advance of the National Sexual
Assault Conference held in Los Angeles, August 27-29, 2013,
a small sampling of executive directors from statewide
dual coalitions were consulted regarding the CALCASA UFP
for the purpose of gaining a national perspective. Overall,
the EDs corroborated much of the data collected from the
interviews and the think tank, most notably the tension
between the two movements, speculatively resulting from:
funding disparity, competition for resources, socio-cultural
and programmatic marginalization experienced by SA in
comparison to DV, and ideological differences (feminist,
family preservationist, and in some instances, tribal).
Out of this discussion, four thematic categories emerge
as areas of focus for best practices toward a unified field:
disciplines, leadership, movement(s), and praxis. These
themes were presented to participants during two workshops
at the 2013 NSAC both for affirmation and for refinement
as best practices. The workshops were well attended and,
gauging from the responses, relationship building between
the SA and DV movements is a topic participants were eager
to discuss. Beyond the scope of this project, it was clear that
advocates around the nation felt the tensions between the
two fields and more critical conversations of this nature
should be encouraged.
A UNIFYING FIELDS PROJECT
11
Development of Training Framework:
A two-day workshop was originally envisioned as a training
for dual agencies. However, as the project progressed, it
became clear that there was a need for additional content
development before a training could be implemented. A
two-day gathering became an opportunity to develop a
training framework for future use. The two-day workshop,
with 33 attendees from dual agencies, was both a chance to
reaffirm all data to date, as well as a testing ground for the
theory of change, reciprocal advancement. It was imperative
to provide them, as established dual agencies, with content
that met their ongoing needs.
The two-day workshop of California-based dual agencies
was designed to answer the following questions:
“How do we create a mutually beneficial and well-defined
relationship between SA and DV to affect changes more
likely to be achieved together than alone?”
“How will we know when we have achieved said
relationship?”
“How do we ensure that this relationship will continue on
into the future?”
4
With these questions at the fore, content gathered from
workshop participants has been organized into what are
now four training modules – disciplines, movement(s), praxis,
and leadership.
field: disciplines, leadership, movement(s), and praxis. As a
sustainability strategy, the anticipated long term impact is an
improved quality of life for individuals and broader society.
MODULE I: DISCIPLINES
Disciplines for our purposes consist of what we know, how we
know, what are our truths, and how we represent and embody
knowledge and truths (i.e., “walk our talk”); then, not only
perpetuate, but claim this body of knowledge as our own for
the fields. SA and DV would be as both linked yet distinct.
Training goal: to increase participants’ capacity and ability
to internalize and institutionalize the linked yet distinct
written and oral traditions and experiences of SA and DV
both internally (within their organizations) and externally
(community stakeholders). The topics covered in this module
include: commonalities, distinctions and histories; expertise;
modalities; and research.
Example prompts: How can bodies of knowledge related to
SA/DV be analyzed through reciprocal advancement? How
does reciprocal advancement reveal opportunities as well as
gaps in our bodies of knowledge of SA/DV? How can each
of the five areas of coordination (policy, fund development,
direct service, media, and prevention) reflect or promote
reciprocal advancement in our lay and academic literature,
as well as oral traditions? How can we utilize our body of
knowledge to forecast and set trends for SA/DV?
MODULE II: LEADERSHIP
FOUR TRAINING MODULES –
The four best practices for a unified field:
Disciplines
Leadership
Movement(s)
Praxis
Training Framework
The Training Framework was derived from a synthesis of
the literature review, key interviews, think tank, NSAC 2013
workshops, and the two-day workshop, contextualized by the
goals of CALCASA’s UFP. From this synthesis, four structuring
themes emerged as modules for dissemination of reciprocal
advancement as a theory of change toward a more unified
12
CALCASA: 2015
Leadership for our purposes is distilled down to three key
points: “who” leads (i.e. representational, positional, team),
“what” carries the leadership (i.e. vision, values), and “how”
leadership functions (i.e. style, skill).
Training goal: to increase participants’ capacity and ability
to 1) to empower existing leaders to further reciprocal
advancement organizationally and administratively, and 2)
to identify and instill these values in emerging and positional
leadership. The topics covered in this module include: who
are our leaders for SA and DV, how is leadership modeled,
and what guides leadership.
Example prompts: How can leadership related to SA/DV
be analyzed through reciprocal advancement? How does
reciprocal advancement reveal opportunities as well as
gaps in SA/DV leadership? How can each of the five areas
of coordination (policy, fund development, direct service,
media, and prevention) reflect or promote reciprocal
advancement in leadership training and opportunities?
MODULE III: MOVEMENT(S)
MODULE IV: PRAXIS
Movement for our purposes means activism that organizes
constituents into a force that advances the causes of social
justice and equity as a strategy for social change.
Praxis is characterized as the service to survivors and
presence in communities. It is how a unified SA/DV field
becomes integral to communities.
Training goal: to build necessary skills for a unified social
justice SA and DV agenda, develop key skills for organizing
and mobilizing, and identify strategies for including social
justice into programmatic outcomes. The topics covered
in this module include: historical and contemporary action
planning, activism, advocacy, mobilization, and coalition
building for social change, equity and justice.
Training goal: to increase the capacity of SA and DV
organizations to adopt a principle of reciprocal advancement
and ensure a level of internalization, institutionalization,
and intentionality as strategies for agency sustainability.
The topics covered in this module include: organizations
(structure, administration, operations, missions), ethos, and
public discourse.
Example prompts: How can reciprocal advancement
create new paths for SA/DV activism? How does reciprocal
advancement reveal opportunities as well as gaps in SA/DV
advocacy? How can SA/DV integration into the five areas
of coordination (policy, fund development, direct service,
media, and prevention) inspire social change?
Example prompts: How can what the field does and how
it does it, be supported and sustained through reciprocal
advancement? How does reciprocal advancement reveal
opportunities as well as gaps in SA/DV performance and
practices? How can each of the five areas of coordination
(policy, fund development, direct service, media, and
prevention) reflect or promote reciprocal advancement
to reveal best practices in services to survivors and
communities?
The Training Framework seeks to provide a blueprint for the
two issues to come together in a way that addresses the
elements, which have created tensions and divisions and to
facilitate building a stronger future together that is respectful
of accomplishments, expertise, and distinctiveness, with an
overarching goal of creating a safer society.
A UNIFYING FIELDS PROJECT
13
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations from CALCASA’s UFP suggest next steps for implementation of reciprocal advancement as a theory of change.
The list is not exhaustive; it presents tangible and doable logical steps in a continuous journey.
ASSESSMENTS – Across all project activities for CALCASA’s UFP was the persistent concern (and a resigned sense of helplessness
at being able to do anything about it) as to how DV overwhelms the SA components of dual agencies, and their ability to be
truly dual (in name and practice). Next steps for dual agencies and coalitions would include an internal assessment of policies
and practices, which speak to the nature of the dual agency, as well as a clarification of the dual’s defining characteristics.
For ‘stand-alone’ agencies in both prevention and intervention opportunities for integration, linking, and cohesion both
programmatically and operationally could be assessed and acted upon.
RESEARCH – As mentioned herein, there is little empirical data that examines the benefits of a reciprocal advancement
approach to the movement to end violence against women. Changed community norms, self-reports from survivors, and cost
savings from reduced administrative redundancy are all potential measures for further research. While anecdotal situations
confirm that strengthening the relationship between the SA and DV fields is a good idea, data is what frequently drives policy
change and funding initiatives. A good place to start would be the evaluation of the CALCASA’s UFP Training Framework once
implemented.
FUNDING – Not elaborated herein, has been the tangle of categorical funding that unintentionally reinforces separation of
the fields. Much of this funding is governmental, and situated according to departments (criminal justice, health, education,
etc.) and statutes. Rather than tackle that, a reciprocal advancement funding effort would look to both generate new funding
streams and compel the field to create new programmatic and policy opportunities in both prevention and intervention.
POLICY /MEDIA – An essential component to changing community norms regarding SA and DV has been and continues
to be advocacy, policy and working with media. Coalitions, organizations and agencies can advocate for and inform policy
mechanisms to elevate domestic violence and sexual assault together to create broader awareness with policy makers.
Legislative action should be intentional and specific. Policy can be used to complement media activities, branding, and public
awareness campaigns to expand the dialogue to be more inclusive of the history, differences, and opportunities of a more
united movement to end violence against women.
CONCLUSION
The intent of CALCASA’s UFP project was to initiate a conversation that would foster a more unified field between domestic violence
and sexual assault. An increase in media attention has created the opportunity to dissect both issues and identify opportunities to
link domestic violence and sexual assault through policy, fund development, direct services, public awareness, and prevention. A
unified field would be intentional in its internalization and institutionalization of reciprocal advancement.
Overall, responses from participants were encouraging and indicated that CALCASA’s UFP was on to something important – the
sustainability of the movement to end violence against women requires intentional collaboration. It is important to recognize
those voices which were not consulted at this stage of the project: stand alone and affinity-based organizations, collaborative
and institutional partners, as well as the other issues and populations that touch the fields of domestic violence and sexual assault
(working with children, elders, men; systems response, coordinated community responses, etc.). Further exploration of reciprocal
advancement would need to seek out strategic partnerships for broader community work, concentrating on the intersections,
looking to where they can be linked-yet-distinct, and how they can strive for transformation.
This document examines the state of the field and expresses intent from CALCASA to curate a national dialogue, elevating the
topics in unison and developing strategies for the future implementation of reciprocal advancement. The guidelines not only
articulate a way to move a unified field forward, but also reinforce the concept of reciprocal advancement as a means to an end for
sustaining organizations and programs, as well as community norms change.
14
CALCASA: 2015
Move to End Violence
A UNIFYING FIELDS PROJECT
15
WORKS CONSULTED
“About Us.” American Humane Association. http://www.americanhumane.org/about-us/who-we-are/history/#1877
Benitez, Judy. “Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence: Intersections and Disjunctions From the Field.” Sexual Assault Report.
September/October, 2013
Bortner, Peter. “Opinion Split on Serving Victims of Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault.” Republicanherald.com [online]. 2012.
http://republicanherald.com/news/opinion-split-on-serving-victims-of-domestic-violence-sexual-assault-1.1327315
DeDomenico-Payne, Melissa A. “My Perspective: The Subtle Differences Between…Stand-Alone Domestic Violence (DV) Program,
Stand-Alone Sexual Assault (SA) Program, and a Dual (DV & SA Program).” Revolution. Virginia Sexual & Domestic Violence Action
Alliance. Winter, 2006.
VanAudenhove, Kristi, et al. “Open and Willing: the process of creating a new coalition.” Revolution. Virginia Sexual & Domestic Violence
Action Alliance. Winter, 2006.
Forti, Matthew. “Six Theory of Change Pitfalls to Avoid.” Nonprofit Management. Stanford Social Innovation Review. 2012.
http://www.ssireview.org/blog/entry/six_theory_of_change_pitfalls_to_avoid
Gruenberg, Jill. “When Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Converge.” The CCASA. Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault.
2012
“Intersections: Domestic Violence and Allied Organizations Partnering for Health.” La Piana Consulting. Blue Shield of California
Foundation. June, 2013.
Macy, Rebecca J. and Ermentrout, Dania M. “Consensus Practices in the Provision of Services to Survivors of Domestic Violence and
Sexual Assault.” University of North Carolina, School of Social Work. 2007
Macy, Rebecca J. et al. “Directors’ Opinions About Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Service Strategies that Help Survivors.”
Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Sage Publishing. 2012
“No More: Together We Can End Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault.” http://nomore.org/about/
Patterson, Debra. “The Effectiveness of sexual Assault Services in Multi-Service Agencies.” VAWnet Applied Research Forum. September,
2009.
“Power of Partnership: Strategic Restructuring Among Domestic Violence Organizations, The – Case Studies.” La Piana Consulting.
Blue Shield of California Foundation. January, 2012
“Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence: Common Goals, Distinct Differences.” Reshape: the Newsletter of the Sexual Assault Coalition
Resource Sharing Project. Issue #17, Winter, 2006.
Simonsen, Jo., et al. “Riding Tandem on the Pathway to Prevention: Ohio’s experience in collaboratively prevention intimate partner
violence and sexual assault.” Ohio Sexual and Intimate Partner Violence Prevention Consortium. 2013.
“Theory of Change: A Practical Tool for Action, Results and Learning.” Organizational Research Services. Annie E. Casey Foundation.
2004.
Westat, Inc. “Inventory of Services and Funding Sources for Programs Designed to Prevent Violence Against Women.” Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. 1996
“Working Together and/Or Apart: Sexual Assault (SA) & Domestic Violence (DV): NSVRC Interviews Annette Burrhus-Clay and Joyce
Lukima.” The Resource/NSVRC. Fall/Winter, 2002.
16
CALCASA: 2015
WORKS CITED
I. Blue Shield of California Foundation. (2012). The Power of Partnership: Strategic Restructuring Among Domestic Violence
Organizations. California: Blue Shield of California Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.blueshieldcafoundation.org/sites/
default/files/publications/downloadable/Power_of_Partnership_2012.pdf
II. Black, M.C., Basile, K.C, Breiding, M.J., Smith, S.G., Walters, M.L., Merrick, M.T….Stevens, M.R. (2011). The national intimate
partner and sexual violence survey:2010 report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention.
III. World Health Organization & London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. (2010). Preventing intimate partner and
sexual violence against women: Taking action and generating evidence. Geneva: World Health Organization. Retrieved from
http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/violence/9789241564007_eng.pdf
IV. Basile, K., Hamburger, M., Swahn, M., & Choi, C. (2013). Sexual violence perpetration by adolescents in dating versus samesex peer relationships: Differences in associated risk and protective factors. Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, 14(4),
329-340.
V. Wilkins, N., Tsao, B., Hertz, M., Davis, R., Klevens, J. (2014). Connecting the Dots: An Overview of the Links Among Multiple
Forms of Violence. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Oakland, CA: Prevention Institute.
VI. Manning, M., & Mullings, L. (1986). A Black Feminist Statement. In The Combahee River Collective statement: Black Feminist
organizing in the seventies and eighties. Albany, New York: Kitchen Table: Women of Color Press.
VII. Thompson, B. (2002). Multiracial Feminism: Recasting the Chronology of Second Wave Feminism. Second Wave Feminism in
the United States, 28(2), 336-360.
VIII. Trickett, P. K., Noll, J. G., & Putnam, F. W. (2011). The impact of sexual abuse on female development: Lessons from a multigenerational,
longitudinal research study. Development and Psychopathology, 23, 453-476. doi:10.1017/S0954579411000174.
A UNIFYING FIELDS PROJECT
17
© 2015 by California Coalition Against Sexual Assault
•
1215 K Street, Suite 1850, Sacramento, CA 95814
•
www.calcasa.org